If the car makers aren't rushing to bring us fuel efficient cars, at least some governments in Europe are working on the problem. The Netherlands is planning on scrapping a vehicle purchase and road tax and bringing in a kilometre levy instead.

I lived in Amsterdam for 8 years and inside the city centre congestion isn't too bad, especially when you consider it's the capital city. But there's a good reason for that - the citywide transport network including trains, trams, metro system and buses means you can get from A to B without too much fuss, and the fact that almost everyone owns a bike means that there's no need to get in your car only to queue up on the roads and spend hours circling the city centre looking for a parking spot.

© Debra Broughton

But outside city centres things are different. The amount of traffic on the roads has grown year by year until these days the motorway between Rotterdam and Amsterdam is one long queue for much of the day. Change is desperately needed.

There are a couple of pretty nice things about the Dutch road pricing scheme. It will replace existing car and road tax so drivers can't complain it's just another tax on driving. It is a tax on driving, but not a tax on car ownership, so people who drive less will pay less. It seems to me (and most of the Dutch population) that people who drive more, wearing out the road surface and causing all that extra congestion, should pay more. It's only fair.

Pricing will depend on time and location and the CO2 emissions of the car. So there's a congestion element and a climate policy element.

There is some road pricing in Europe - in Germany and Austria, trucks are charged according to their emission levels and number of axles. Bergen in Norway has had a congestion charge since 1986 with reductions for electric cars. There are tolls on some motorways in countries like France, Italy and Spain, and you have to buy a disc in Austria before you hit the highways.

In the UK, the London congestion charge gives concessions to electric cars but not to other cars with lower CO2 emissions. The UK's second planned congestion charging scheme in Manchester, which is being voted on by residents right now, offers no incentives for drivers to switch to more efficient cars. This government-funded scheme is said to be a flagship that will be rolled out across cities in the UK if it's approved, and it's disappointing that a government who has committed to an 80% reductions in CO2 emissions hasn't insisted on an environmental incentive in the scheme. On the plus side, the scheme does depend on improvements in public transport.

Carmakers operating in the Dutch market need to get their skates on to be ready for the changing market there, but they have some time to start building up their range of low CO2 cars - the scheme will be phased in starting in 2011. And the car industry loves a phase-in, we know that already.

Posted by Debra at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I strolled into some car showrooms last weekend and tried to get the low down on fuel efficient cars.

I got a few strange looks from the salesmen when I asked about CO2 emissions. One was puzzled about exactly why I was interested in emissions levels. Though there were eco-labels on most of the cars, I got the impression that no one had ever asked him before. "Was it to take advantage of cheaper car tax?" he asked.

"No," I told him. "It's because I want a car with low CO2 emissions." That clearly didn't make any sense to him, but to be fair, though he didn't know why exactly I was interested in a low emissions petrol car, he did catch on and get me all the data and show me a new petrol car that when it's released next year will come in at just 99 g per kilometre, the lowest emissions for a petrol car on sale in the UK.

© Frank Mentha / Greenpeace

But the one big point about buying a greener car that he just didn't mention is that lower CO2 emissions equals lower fuel costs. It's as simple as that. And in these credit crunch times I reckon it's a brilliant sales tool.

If I chose something like a petrol-driven Citroen C1 with emissions of 109 g, instead of a C3 with emissions of 143 g per kilometre, I'd save myself almost £300 (around €350) in a 12,000 mile year's worth of driving.

I looked at petrol engine cars - diesel may be cheaper but there are still problems with the particles emitted that cause other kinds of pollution, so I decided to stay away from them. And I set myself an ambitious target, more ambitious that the 2012 target being considered right now by the EU, I chose to slash that by 10 g and looked at what I could get under 120 g per kilometre. If I had gone for 130g that would cost me roughly an extra £124 per year. So these are significant savings.

And I found that there are 26 models to choose from, which sounds pretty impressive. Though when you drill down a bit there are only twelve manufacturers. And looking more closely I found that some of them are basically the same car - the Peugeot 107, the Toyoto Aygo and the Citroen C1 are triplets.

There are a couple of hybrids in there - the Prius and the Honda Civic hybrid.

I went into three car showrooms and none of the salespeople mentioned to me that I could save a minimum of £100 a year in running costs just by switching to a car with lower emissions. All of them mentioned the fact that at 120g or lower the UK annual car tax is £35 (that's £85 cheaper than cars with emissions of 121 -150) but why didn't they add on the up to £300 saving in fuel costs and tell me I could save nearly £400 (that's around €475) per year? The tax bands are a great incentive - everyone likes to pay less taxes, but if you use your car regularly it's the fuel cost where you can make some significant savings and it would be the potential £300/€350 saving in petrol that could persuade me to choose one model over another.

And while there are a lot of smarts on that list of 26 cars, there are none from Audi or BMW, only one Peugeot, one Citroen, and two Fiats - both 500s, which seem supersized when you compare then to the original iconic cinquecentos still sneak in at 119g per kilometre.

Posted by Debra at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Have you ever thought about taking a green driving test?

Here's a video of an environmentally-minded driver who took one. Proud of the fuel efficiency he gets from his own car, "how hard can it be?" Patrick Barkham asked as he set off. The challenge was to drive a Ford S-Max around an 8 mile circuit on one litre of petrol.

And the answer is in his case, was very hard indeed. Running out after 5 miles, he managed to achieve only 24 miles per gallon, 40% less than the ideal score. Over a year, that style of driving would emit an extra tonne of CO2.

As the green driving test shows, there could be a lot of scope for driver improvement, so aren't the carmakers right in insisting that eco-driving should be included in the CO2 emissions targets? It's all part of their "integrated approach" that demands that everyone needs to play their part in reducing CO2 emissions.

Eco-driving makes a lot of sense. No one is going to argue that changing your driving habits to make the most of the fuel in your car and limit your CO2 emissions is a bad thing. But to make that part of a target for carmakers to limit CO2 emissions on the vehicles they produce?

It would mean the carmakers can carry on churning out cars with higher CO2 emissions. Remember the EU target is 130g per km and the car lobby wants some of that to come from eco-innovations. So if 7g could come from something like Fiat's ecodrive system, just who is making the reductions?

It's up to you to make that 7g per km saving by driving more carefully. If you don’t your emissions are back up to 137g. So whatever you manage to save by eco-driving won't be an extra saving, it'll be you helping to bail out the car maker again.

And if you think that eco-driving is no problem and that Guardian report was fluke - here's another one in the Independent. He did even worse, only making it three miles around the course before he ran out of fuel.

Posted by Debra at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Around about now each country in the EU will be making its mind up which way to jump on CO2 emissions from cars. That's what this blog is all about, but it's also part of a bigger picture. Like it or not, climate change is a reality and even the most hardened opponents are beginning to realise that we have to do something about it.

The car industry might be doing their best to get out of reducing emissions made by their own hands every time a car takes to the roads, but if they get away with it, where does that leave climate change?

The car industry can try to shift the responsibility but that isn't going to solve the problem - it just means someone else will have to pay the price.

If the car lobby get their way and delay the 130 g CO2/km limit until 2015 and get out of having a binding 2020 target set, it would reduce the total potential CO2 savings across all EU countries by 11 million tons.

So if not from cars, where will the reductions come from?

We have some ideas, but would those sectors be happy that while the carmakers make a quick getaway, they end up being hit with the bill?

In Germany will Sigmar Gabriel break the news that the steel industry has to make extra savings on CO2 emissions to bail BMW and Daimler out?

In France, will it be down to the farmers to save on CO2 emissions. Will Jean-Louis Borloo going to tell the farmers that they need to use less fertilisers?

In Spain - will it be the tourist industry that has to make the savings. Will all the hotels have to turn off the hot tap and take out the minibars?

In the UK - where supermarkets are busy putting doors on the cold cabinets and setting targets to cut travelling and vehicle emissions, will Ed Milliband ask them to go the extra mile that the car industry has failed to deliver on?

And while the car makers have put their energy into lobbying against change, some of these industries have already been taking action.

Between 1990 and 2006 the German steel industry has reduced CO2 emissions by 8.5%.

And though according to ACEA, CO2 emissions on new cars have fallen by 13% between 1995 and 2004, they are unlikely to hit their own voluntary target of 140g per km by 2008.

When you look at the total traffic on our roads, between 1990 and 2006 CO2 emissions from road transport went up by over 26%. The figure does include rail and road freight traffic, but cars make up a hefty 74% of that so it's not hard to see where the bulk of the increase is coming from. So if we are to tackle the problem of CO2 emissions from cars, we still have a long way to go.

In 2006, the German car industry's emissions actually went up by 0.6%.

So if the car industry isn’t going to make the effort, who will end up paying the price?

Posted by Debra at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

[r]evolution is in the air, and it's an energy [r]evolution. So I'm hoping that someone puts a copy of the new Greenpeace report under the noses of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel because it shows how a long term reduction of CO2 emissions to just 80g per km could be achieved in Europe.

With plenty of facts to back it up, the report takes account of an increased world-wide demand in car ownership, and analyses current trends of increasing oil prices to show that there will be a switch away from the combustion engine. Electric cars figure highly in the Greenpeace scenario. Remember I talked about that in a recent post, and told you about the solution we put forward - a future where electric cars will really be greener. When the energy [r]evolution takes place, emissions from private cars will go down to 25% below 1995 levels. I hope you'll agree that it's a pretty impressive number. And renewable electricity will cover 19% of total car energy demand - right now it's barely on the scale.

In these times of economic crisis, it needs to be even more of a priority - investing in renewable energy systems and energy efficiency will actually help stabilise the global economy and allow car makers to sell more cars that really earn the green label. So it will create jobs in the renewable energy and car industries and everyone wins out.

And a recent survey has shown there's an increasing demand for greener cars - in the UK, 3 in 4 buyers would look for a lower CO2 emitting car when making their next purchase.

If you need any more convincing, according to Paul Nieuwenhuis of the Cardiff Business School, the manufacturers have already made investments in the technology needed to make greener cars.

The report shows that the world can meet much more of its energy from renewable and sustainable sources, which is good news for the planet. All the ingredients are there. So what are you waiting for?

Download the report (the cars bit starts on page 174 but there is plenty more interesting stuff in there), and sign up to find out how you can get involved in the energy [r]evolution.

Posted by Debra at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It might not come as a surprise to learn that, according to Green (living) Review, the EU is back-pedalling and reports on a French proposal to delay limits on CO2 emissions from cars until 2015.

But it's not all bad news - the Euractiv website says that ACEA aren't likely to get the € 40 billion loan that some commentators consider to be just a bargaining tool in what is turning into the great CO2 emissions swindle.

Instead of lending the car makers money to do what they'd promised to do years ago and never delivered on, President Sarkzoy wants to hand them €400 million to help pay for research into clean vehicles over the next 4 years.

I'm not sure where President Sarkozy was when the Paris Auto Show was going on. Wasn't this year's show green from top to toe, with car makers keen to show off the latest innovations in low or no CO2 emission cars?

Or perhaps he didn't know that the car makers can make the targets with existing technology.

I have a sneaking feeling that instead of getting useful info on this blog, he's been listening to the German-backed car lobby.

If you want to help remind him and his pal Angela Merkel that it's within the reach of the car makers and it's what the people want a, sign the Greenpeace petition. If you've already signed, there must be someone you know who hasn't. www.greenpeace.org/eurocarsmerkel

Posted by Debra at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Don't think petrol, think electric, that's the message coming from the Paris Auto Show where carmakers are falling over themselves to show off their green credentials and their plans for zero emission electric cars.

From all-electric sports cars to cute little superminis with solar batteries in the roof, all the manufacturers want a piece of the action. If the rumours are to be believed we could even be seeing Audi and BMW electric cars on our roads some day.

It all sounds magnifique, doesn't it?

Now I'm not completely knocking the electric car because it will have an important role to play in the move away from the combustion engine. Along with increased public transport and all the other ways you can think of for getting around and helping the planet out. (And you can call me a revolutionary if you like, but for short journeys you could always hop on a bike or walk.)

Even if they turn out not to be the holy grail of new car technology, many of these
electric cars will have lower emissions, and that's a good thing. But zero CO2 emissions? I hope you're not buying that idea.

It's true that nothing much will be coming out of the exhaust pipe, but when you think about where all that extra electricity is going to come from all that greenness might just turn out to be un peu overdone.

Let's look at the facts. In 2005, 35% of electricity generated came from nuclear sources.

That's more than a third of the electricity in Europe.

© Greenpeace / Jesse Anttila

And we all know what happens when you generate nuclear energy. I wasn't quite thinking of Chernobyl, but that is one of the things. And if you think that's all in the past, it's been going on this year, in Belgium, in France and with safety issues in Finland where a new reactor is being built.

The other problem is that you get truck loads of radioactive waste that no one has figured out a way to deal with.

So what about the other 65%?

© Greenpeace

Well, the bad worse news is that only 14% of electricity generated in Europe comes from renewable sources.

So that means that your brand new electric car is 35% nuclear, 51% CO2 emitting and only 14% green.

And what happens if electric cars take off in a big way? Pretty soon, we'd need to generate a whole lot more electricity.

© Greenpeace / Steve Morgan
But don't worry Greenpeace has a revolutionary answer. An energy [r]evolution that would enable us to meet 50% of the world's total energy demand, through a massive up scaling of clean energy, by a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

And before you ask what about all the increasing population levels we can expect in the future, economic growth (assuming the world can gets out of the mess its in now) and so on? Well the report takes that into account, and according to the predictions we'll be able to provide energy to an additional 2 billion people.

And I haven't forgotten about all those electric cars either. I'll give you a scoop about the new version of the report, which isn't launched until the end of the month. It will show you how even with a shift of up to 50% of the world's cars to electricity and the increased energy needs can still could be met by renewables and improving technologies.

If you want to get stuck into the details, you'll have to hang on a few days, but I'll let you know where to find the report as soon as I can.

Posted by Debra at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sometimes good news comes where you least expect it - and this time it's in an article on the Automotive news website. The headline is: Europe's carmakers can reach 130g/km CO2 target.

It's something Greenpeace has known for a while - remember they got together a list of over 100 cars in production now that meet the 2012 targets.

It's a refreshing change, in a week when Fiat Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne announced that ACEA plan to apply to a 40 billion euro loan from the EU to help subsidise the cost of the improvements needed to bring their fleets up to a level where they'll meet the targets.

You can't blame the car industry for trying to make a positive out of a negative - it's a clever move to turn the logic on its head so that instead of the carmakers paying penalties for failing to make the grade, the EU pays them in the form of a low interest loan.

But you may have spotted the flaw in the argument. If you need a clue just scroll up and read the headline again.

That's right. According to automotive news, there are a range of cars on the stands at the Paris Motor Show with emissions levels below 100g, and these are just the cars on the market now or in the next twelve months.

And if you need any more, a recent report shows that in the UK CO2 emissions from cars fell by 4.5% in the past 3 months. This is the largest decrease on record. Right now, the average car emits 156.6g/km of CO2. If the carmakers carry on like this they'll be on target to meet the EU emission targets of 130g/km by 2012.

So you see, we can get there after all. And if we do, we can start doing something to tackle climate change.

The only people we need to convince are the car makers themselves. It's up to the EU to do that, with some strong but achievable targets that will not only save us money on fuel costs, but will do the planet a big favour too.

Posted by Debra at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(Hint - it's not the climate)

In an interview in Der Spiegel, German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel comes right out and says, "People are acting as if the world climate depended on whether the legislation is fully enacted three years earlier or later. I think this is totally absurd."

He thinks it's totally absurd?

I'm speechless.

This is the kind of thing I might expect from people on planet car lobby, but shouldn't an environment minister be just a little bit concerned about the environment? He's clearly not armed with any of the facts. How can he be when he thinks that "the problem lies elsewhere"?

Well, I've done quite a bit of research for this blog, so let me spell it out for you Mr Gabriel.

Here are some facts:

According to Wikipedia the EU ranks 3rd highest in CO2 emissions, at 14.7%, behind the US and China.

Even with the US coming in at 22%, it's difficult to argue that the problem lies elsewhere. You see, Mr Gabriel, that 14.7% of the problem lies in Europe. (And by the way Germany is way up that list, coming in 6th.) And 14.7% of the solution is a big deal whichever way you look at it.

When he's taken a look at the figures, Mr Gabriel might want to check out this handy Greenpeace report - energy [r]evolution and turn to page 11 where he'll find that if emissions don't decline by 2020 we will be in deep trouble. He can find a list of those troubles on the same page.

And he might be interested to know that the sea bed, already heating up with the warming effects of climate change could unleash a massive store of methane that will speed up the effects of climate change faster than we've ever seen.

If Mr Gabriel had been reading this blog he'd have already known that transport emissions make up nearly a quarter of the EU's carbon footprint.

And car ownership has been growing - it was up 25% in the period 1995 -2005.

According to the EU Environment Agency report "Climate for a transport change" (I'd recommend Mr Gabriel gets hold of a copy - it has plenty of facts and figures that he would find useful in his work) if transport sector emissions had followed the same reduction trend as in society as a whole in 1995 -2005, greenhouse gas emissions in the EU would have fallen by 14 % instead of 7.9%.

Or put simply, we'd have doubled the reductions in Greenhouse gas emissions if the car industry had done something about it back in 1995. Ten years has made a huge difference, and not in a good way.

Mr Gabriel wants to add another three years delay onto that.

To use his own words, I think that is totally absurd.

Posted by Debra at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I’ve just found this handy Greenhouse Gas Equivalence calculator on the US environmental protection agency website. Because you can’t see CO2 emissions, it can be hard to visualise what effect we’re having on the environment every time we take to the roads in our cars. But with this calculator you can enter an amount of CO2 and work out what it means in barrels of oil consumed, energy use in your home or emissions from a coal fired power plant. And as I wrote about Kingsnorth recently, I thought I’d used that comparison.

It turns out that car drivers in the UK cover a staggering 404 billion kilometres each year.

So what are the CO2 emissions on that and what could be saved when the EU cars legislation takes effect?

Last year average CO2 emissions were 158g/km CO2 per kilometre travelled. So in a year, the citizens of the UK would run up over 63 million tons of CO2 emissions just from driving. (But there are a couple of things to bear in mind here - we don’t all drive new cars, and the figure of 158g reached by measurements taken under test conditions. Out on the road emissions will be much higher.)

I put 63 million tons into the handy greenhouse gas equivalence calculator, and guess what I found?

It works out at the annual CO2 emissions from 14 coal fired power stations.

So cars on the road in the UK today are responsible for as much CO2 as almost two thirds of all the coal fired power stations in the country. I was shocked by that. No wonder car travel is high up the EU agenda for reducing CO2 emissions.

Now I’m not saying if we drove less we could shut down the power stations, because that’s not true, and I’m definitely not saying that if we made savings on car emissions we could build more power stations because that wouldn’t help at all. And as for nuclear – don’t get me started on that. What we’re talking about here is doing something to try to prevent more climate change by getting CO2 emissions down. And if we think about it in terms of power stations, it’s not hard to see the impact this will have on our lives and those of future generations.

So if the EU brings in a law to reduce the average CO2 emissions, when all the cars on the road were replaced with ones meeting the new target, annual emissions would go down by 10 metric tons.

And that would save the annual emissions from 2 power stations.

It’s important to note that I’m not suggesting everyone rushes out and buys a new car, but when cars are replaced it’s an opportunity to make significant savings on CO2 emissions.

But this is just what the car industry wants to settle for. I’m sure with a little more effort we could save another power station’s worth of emissions.

The original proposal from the EU commission was for an average emission rate on new cars to be capped at 120g/km. That would mean bringing down the total CO2 emissions in the UK by around 15 million tons.

If that sounds like quite a big reduction, it is and it would save us almost another 2 power stations.

And remember the technology to do this is already out there – Greenpeace have proved that with their low emissions convoy.

Posted by Debra at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The UK’s Guardian newspaper recently covered a new report from the Potsdam institute for Climate Impact Research, which argues that only a return to pre-industrial levels of CO2 emissions climate change can save the planet from the effects of climate change.

Professor John Schellnhuber, director of the institute, is worried that even a small rise in temperature could cause events like methane being released from melting permafrost that would trigger further warming. But he says that if we do manage to stabilise CO2 emissions, then science fiction technology could be used to actively extract CO2 from the atmosphere.
This report follows one launched earlier this month by Manchester’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change research.

The Tyndall Centre report blames political inaction that has lead to a need for extreme solutions – some countries might have to resort to blocking out the sun to prevent unbearable temperature rises. If these measures sound a bit too sci-fi to you, the report's authors argue that “the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing.”

The trouble is, by the time we know for sure whether we need to take drastic action it could be too late. It’s like a game of Russian roulette but the stakes aren’t just one life – all our lives are at risk here.

Personally, I’d need a bit more convincing that some of the wackier ideas will help the planet rather than get us into deeper water – you only have to look at the nuclear power industry to see how a barmy and dangerous solution is touted as a safe and clean alternative to coal generated electricity.

But someone should point out to the EU Commission that back in pre-industrial times there weren’t any cars on the road (remember that cars in the EU contribute nearly a quarter of its carbon footprint) so big changes are needed.

I reckon it’s about time for the car lobby to stop playing Russian roulette with the climate and take some serious action to get CO2 emissions down across all their cars.

Posted by Debra at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It seems car sales in Europe are suffering this year. Via Automotive News Europe here's the sales results for the first six months of the year.

Large SUVs: -44.4
Large cars: -29.5
Large minivans: -21.7
Upper premium: -15.8
Premium SUVs: -14.6
Source: JATO Dynamics

That's a lot of people choosing to do the right thing. Of course most of this is driven by the high fuel prices, but if you'd asked the car companies back in January could they cut Large SUV sales by 44% they'd have told you it was impossible.

Now we need laws to make sure this positive trend becomes permanent.

Posted by Martin at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Strange as it may seem there is such a thing and it’s all over the news right now.

And what does the VW law have to do with this blog? Well it’s simple. And complicated.

The law gives the Lower Saxony federal government the right of veto even though it only has a 20% share in the company and not have the required 25%.

This gets Porsche who have a 30% stake in the company, all fired up. "We are firmly convinced there's no need for a VW law," they say.

And no wonder. Under the proposed EU cars legalisation, Porsche is reliant on a clause to allow pooling, where companies who sell “premium” (roughly translated as big gas guzzling) cars will be able to pool together with companies that produce smaller and cleaner cars. So Porsche can pool with VW to use its saving to offset its own high emissions.

But imagine if the VW law is scrapped, EU Internal Market and Services Commissioner Charlie McCreevy intends – then Porsche can take over VW and use its smaller models as part of its own corporate fleet average. Job done for Porsche, but another road crash for the climate.

Posted by Debra at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It’s good to see that the European Trade Union Confederation has come out against the recent industry vote on CO2 emissions in cars.
The ETUC is “disappointed over the outcome of the vote by the European Parliament Industry Committee because it weakens the proposals aimed at forcing vehicle manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars.”

Trade Unions and environmentalist don’t always see eye to eye. It’s all about jobs, which confuses me a bit because we’re not talking about producing fewer cars. The legislation doesn’t aim to limit the number of cars being produced. The issue is all about getting the cars on our roads to be more efficient.

I really can’t see how that leads to job cuts but I’ve heard that in France the unions are siding with the carmakers. It’s all so short sighted. But there is hope - the EUTC says “considerable economic and social benefits can be expected of such legislation, in terms of investments in research and the development of low-carbon technologies, thus helping to create and maintain long-term jobs in Europe’s automotive industry.”

Or as the environmental expert puts it, “the best way to protect the industry’s employment is to promote, as soon as possible, the development of fuel-saving vehicles which meet the needs of consumers with modest incomes.”
By the way Greenpeace has just published a report with more info on this issue. You can get it here.

Talk to anyone with a car these days and you’ll hear complaints about the rising cost of fuel.

The people understand the need to build more efficient cars.

The workers understand that their industry depends on it.

So why won’t the car industry face the truth?

Posted by Debra at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Economist reported recently that cars are getting greener.

But though big emitter BMW has made a 7% improvement in its CO₂ emissions (and still has a long way to go to meet the original proposed target of 120g/km), the industry average is a pathetic 1.7%. No wonder car makers are working hard to get the EU targets watered down and penalties lowered.

In the US, where legislation governing fuel economy has been in place for years, many car makers opt to pay the penalties - it’s cheaper than to do that than make more efficient cars. And guess who pays the price for that?

We do.

So if the European car lobby gets its way, they’ll be boosting EU coffers with a few Euros here and there while we buy less efficient cars that will cost us more than it should, every time we fill up our tanks.

Let’s take that one step further. If our MEPs don’t vote in favour of strong penalties for car makers who fail to make the emissions targets, then they are going to hit us right where it hurts - in our pockets.

How many of us even know who our MEPs are?

I’m going to look mine up right now – maybe I can find out whether he or she expects me to subsidize the car industry. And by exactly how much.

Posted by Debra at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Emissions from transport in the EU make up nearly a quarter of its carbon footprint.

Every car on every road in Europe contributes to climate change. And there are a lot of cars around – I only need to look out of my window to see the growing amounts of traffic on the roads. Car ownership in the European Union rose by 25% in the ten years from 1995. These figures are no good for the climate and unless people stop driving, something else has to happen to stop car emissions levels rising even more.

Though many of us knew about the dangers for climate change a lot earlier, it was only in 1992 that the world began the slow process of taking action to combat climate change. It seems strange looking back that before 1995 there were no targets on CO2 emissions and car manufacturers could get way with what they liked as long as the car would sell.

But something had to change – even the car industry knew that.

So when the European Commission began to look at CO2 emission targets back in the early 90s, the car industry jumped in with offers to help. They said they could reduce emissions from new cars to an average of 140g per kilometre by 2008.

If that sounds like a significant improvement on the 1995 levels of 186g per km, it’s important to note that the original EU target was a significant 20g less at 120g per km. And bear in mind that even if the emissions come down per car, the number of new cars coming onto our roads could easily wipe out that gain and leave emissions rising.

Since then although manufacturers have added some ‘eco models’ they carried on producing polluting cars and have popularised SUVs in European markets. The German car makers’ emissions actually increased in 2006. There are brightly coloured energy ratings on new cars but that hasn’t had much effect and the manufacturers carried on making their cars just as big and heavy while bamboozling us with crafty advertising showing us how good they were for the environment.

The trouble with this approach is that though they’d put off the day of CO2 reckoning, there was still a deadline to be met. More on that next time.

Posted by Debra at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)